The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

G1 and Macro

deckitout

New member
It seems quite a few here shoot macro/close up with various set ups

I fancy trying my hand at Macro, I have absolutely no experience in this field. I own a G1 with the 14/45 kit lens, I have also just ordered an EPL1 at reduced price.

So I am looking for some advice as to what options are available at a cheap price, not wanting at this point to spend to much on a dedicated macro such as the Panny 45.

Any advice appreciated

Phil
 
S

sagarmatha

Guest
Buy some closeup lenses! Good ones are MCON 40 and the Raynox series. I will probably buy a GH2 and the 100-300 mm. A Raynox 250 with +8D on that lens will give me a print magnification of 4.8!
 

deckitout

New member
Thanks for your reply, this is all very new to me

Is there preffered lenses that these would go on, at present I have the 14/45 Panny and 20/1.7, intend to get the 40/150 at some point

Thanks


Buy some closeup lenses! Good ones are MCON 40 and the Raynox series. I will probably buy a GH2 and the 100-300 mm. A Raynox 250 with +8D on that lens will give me a print magnification of 4.8!
 
S

sagarmatha

Guest
Well for the MCON40 you will have to get the right diameter or use step rings. Raynox use some kind of snap on device that goes between 49-67 mm if I remember correct. I use Raynox on my FZ50 with diameter 55 mm. In the wide end you get vignetting but I always use it in the tele end and there you don't see any vignetting at all.
 

hot

Active member
A Raynox 250 with +8D on that lens will give me a print magnification of 4.8!
A Raynox 150 is the "better" solution. You get a little bit less magnification, but more distance and more depth. Price is the same.
 
S

sagarmatha

Guest
Of course, it's all a matter of magnification. I have both, Raynox 150 gives you +4.8 diopters. MCON40 gives you +2.5 D, good for butterflies.
Working distances are roughly 40, 20 and 12 cm in the order MCON40, R150, R250
 

Tesselator

New member
It seems quite a few here shoot macro/close up with various set ups

I fancy trying my hand at Macro, I have absolutely no experience in this field. I own a G1 with the 14/45 kit lens, I have also just ordered an EPL1 at reduced price.

So I am looking for some advice as to what options are available at a cheap price, not wanting at this point to spend to much on a dedicated macro such as the Panny 45.

Any advice appreciated

Phil


I've been totally digging close-up filters for many years now!

If you're wanting to get into macro photography cheaply think about a $35 close up lens first. There are two basic types. Single element multi-coated ones often designated by an MC printed on the barrel and multi-lens high grade achromatic ones often designated with an AC printed on the barrel and usually containing aspherical elements. The price difference is usually negligible like $25 for the MC and $45 for the AC or something close to that.

Regardless of the focal length of your camera lens (if it's distance reading is set to infinity) focus is obtainable at a point equal to the distance from the tip of the camera's lens to the focal length of the close up attachment. Of course adjusting the focus in from infinity will bring it in closer as well! The various focal lengths available from close up attachments are all about the same price and designated usually by a "No. X" also printed on it's barrel. For example a "No. 1" close up lens is 1,000mm and a "No. 10" is 100mm. This would mean that with a No.1 the farthest you can (typically) focus out to is 1000mm or about 1 yard and with a No.10 100mm (10 cm) or about 1/3 of a foot. Here's a useful table of designate numbers and their typical focal lengths:

Number.........Focal Length............Magnification
No.1............... 1000mm............... 1/20 - 1/6.5
No.2................ 500mm................ 1/10 - 1/5
No.3................ 330mm................ 1/6.7 - 1/4
No.4................ 250mm................ 1/5 - 1/3
No.5................ 200mm................ 1/4 - 1/2.8
No.6................ 160mm................
No.7................ 140mm................
No.8................ 125mm................
No.9................ 115mm................
No.10.............. 100mm................ 1/2.3 - 1/1.7


The AC types are really recommended as there's no fringing or other aberrations that occur with them as opposed to the single lens MC types. At about No. 8 you start seeing some pin cushion (AKA Pillow shaped) distortion on the outer edges for both types. It's usually not too bad though depending on the camera's lens.

I often read people recommending to buy a set comprised of No.1, No.2, and No. 4 only - saying that by combining them you can get a No. 3 (by adding the No.1 atop the No.2), No. 5 (4+1), No. 6 (4+2), and a No.7 (1+2+4) but I dunno if I would recommend that as aberrations (fringe etc.) and distortions are compounded not to mention that these things are thick so with just 2 of them on the front of your lens you've got about a 1 inch black tube which will cause severe vignetting at the lower end of most zoom lenses. I would get a No. 4 (or 5) and a No. 10 (or 9) if I had limited funds and wanted to play with macro. And probably the No. 4 (or 5) is more generally useful than the 10.

Extension tubes are "OK" too but far less convenient IMO, usually more expensive, and now we're exposing our sensor to dust every time we attache or remove it. :(

Here's some examples of AC grade close-up filters on just a lowly point and shoot Minolta A2:





$20 (AC) achromat close-up filter (№ 3) at 200 mm, f/3.5






$22 (AC) achromat close-up filter (№ 4) at 101 mm, f/5.6






$22 (AC) achromat close-up filter (№ 4) at 200 mm, f/8.0
(this little guy is about 1cm in length)






$22 (AC) achromat close-up filter (№ 4) at 200 mm, f/8.0



All of the above created with an achromatic close-up filter attached to a 200mm (equiv.) lens. :D

A very critical factor when shooting macro is lighting and lighting can be quite difficult at such close distances. I'll port a post about lighting next if you like.
 

Tesselator

New member
Lighting Macro Shots - One of Many Methods

In professional ($) studio photography the use of reflection and refraction (translucent) panels are super common. Just about every kind of shot uses them. Often there are many set up just for one shot. They make a huge amount of difference and it's usually nothing you can achieve through software although if you had a week to do the edit in a package like LightWave3D, Maya, XSI, Houdini, or the another 3D package you could probably pull it off in some cases.

But I guess even though most of the people here are mainly using M4/3 or other cary-about cameras and don't have access to a studio and all the goodies found in one, we can still use those techniques. There's all kinds of stuff you can do with a flash or two just using the surfaces in whatever environment you're in.

Allow me to show you a tool I carry with me just about all of the time and tutorialize how I came to create it. Most here have probably already read about the paper trick. It's an old trick to be sure - probably the best explanation I've ever seen of it was this image:


This paper helps but as I'll show, it's not really the best solution.

What I was actually attempting to do was to increase the size of the light source that illuminates a given subject whether it's an insect, still life, or etc. and also at the same time increase the directions from which it's lit. Larger light source = more angular direction = softer lighting, shading, and shadows.

The problem I was exploring solutions for was of course the hard (sharply defined) shadows and harsh specular reflections typical of flash photography especially at macro distances. Those things are OK actually but they're so common and so uniform across practically every rig that people are overdosed you might say, with images that contain those qualities. ; ) Here's an example of a flashed macro shot on the same Minolta A2 mentioned above:


Straight Flash - No diffusor. (Notice the hard shadows and harsh lighting.)​

Let's look at some comparative examples. What gave me my idea in the first place was using studio soft-boxes. There are small soft-boxes for macro but I don't own one so I cannot provide examples here to compare. There are some however on the LimiQuest product site here: http://www.lumiquest.com/lq925.htm And here's what that looks like:


We should notice 3 or 4 things right off the bat here.

  1. Its construction implements an extra thick center panel to attempt to combat the hotspot the flash will produce. Such a hotspot would defeat most of this diffuser's usefulness. Smart, but now we have to use allot more power to achieve the same quantity of light. Probably not too bad with a professional grade flash though and there are several that can work with your G1 and this product.
  2. It's using extremely inexpensive materials with translucent properties. It looks like vinyl (naugahyde) to me. ; )
  3. And we're still emitting light from the same basic direction - in front of the subject. If you can get real close this is probably not a problem and certainly I've seen many examples here are a great testament to just how well it can work when fitted on a fairly strong dedicated flash unit.

The paper thing is a good idea but it doesn't incorporate any conventions for hot-spot elimination so allot of the affect is wasted and additionally your flash has to use several times the power. Paper isn't made of a substance wherein much if any subsurface scattering occurs so during flash transmission it's fluorescence will be low causing uneven lighting, that hop-spot, and etc. My biggest problems with the paper however, are that it's not usable in even the slightest wind and I don't look my coolest with a piece of paper stuck to the front of my camera. : D And for a man my age who still spends as much as I do in a month on fashion I've come to the conclusion that looks are fairly important to me. ; ) Here's an example using the paper method as a diffuser:


Flash with Paper Rig Diffuser (Notice slightly better shadows, but unevenly lit.)​

So I took a trip to the One-Dollar-Shop (hyaku yen shop - in Japanese ;^| ) to see what materials I could sabotage from existing products. I found two plastic trays that seemed like they would fit the bill so I plopped down my Y200 (plus tax) and off I went.

Once home I got out my implements of destruction - a soldering iron and a box-knife in this case, and began hijacking the goods. I used the soldering iron to poke a hole and very slowly melt a cut all the way around like you see below. I used the razor knife to cut off the rough lumpy edges that remained.

For the white plastic one I additionally soaked it in scalding hot water for 30 seconds and bent up one end of it to "catch" more light - as I'm intending to lay these down over the subject as flat as possible in order to extend the farthest angle of light transmission - thereby getting the softest falloff and softest shadows possible with this new lighting "tool". Toward the end of post I'll show how it's being held.


Notice the clarity or translucent properties of the materials here as they lay on the towels.


Here's the clearest one looking at the amount of translucent diffusion over a distance of 0 ~ 40cm.



Here's the whitish one looking at the amount of translucent diffusion over a distance of 0 ~ 40cm.

So with them all cut and ready to use, I tested and compared them on an identical scene. Here's the clear-ish one first. I was thinking that the rough "frosted" surface texture of this plastic would help to diffuse the light more while requiring less energy and battery draw. I held it extended out over the subject about 10 degrees up from parallel off the lens barrel or "film axis" if you're into the proper terms.


Flash With Frosted Clear Plastic Diffuser Panel. (Improved shadow softness, slightly hot center)

Well, the results were pretty good. The shadows seem much better than the paper and I look a little less dorky using it. It's not as good as I expected but a step in the right direction I guess. I noticed while using it that it didn't "light up" during flash ignition and become evenly fluorescent-like. It maintained a slight hot-spot. I guess that shows in the exposure. Next I tested the white plastic one:


Flash With White Translucent Plastic Diffuser Panel. (Even better shadow softness, better center lighting)

This is more like it! This is what I was expecting pretty much. The angle you hold it at is fairly critical to whether or not it produces soft shadows or acts more like a typical "real" diffuser cap which only softens them slightly. Here's the image I spoke of that shows the position it's held in for the softest shadows. Also notice here how the whole thing "lights up" creating a fairly affective diffuse light source (when held at the lower angle) - nice!


White Plastic Diffuser ~15° off Film Axis - Fluorescent-like Transmission Properties



White Plastic Diffuser ~90° off Film Axis - Diffuser-cap-like Front Hot Lighting.

In the top image it's actually difficult to tell just how low of an angle it's at. It's 25 cm in length and the angle of the camera & mirror make it look a little steeper than it is - but you get the idea. The curved end is (supposed to be) for subjects at a distance greater than 30 cm or so. It hasn't worked very well so far, I think if I scald it again and bend it up at a 80 degree angle or so it would tho! But then it won't tuck nicely under my shirt stuck in the waistband of me pants round back now lay flat in a camera bag. : P

I feel I got pretty good value for my $2.00 and 2 hrs spent all total. I've been using it for over a year now and placed in the pouch pocket of a camera back-pack it adds an additional layer of protection for the camera equipment inside the main bag too. Anyway, here's take a closer look at a few areas in those shots and compare them side by side to see the differences better.
 

Tesselator

New member
The Gumby Macro in the following order:
Flash Alone, Flash W/Paper, Flash W/Frosted Plastic Diffuser, Flash W/White Plastic Diffuser


If you maximize your browser window you should be able to see them side by side in a row.

Let's take a look at an area a little farther away from the lens and much more off center. In the same order again; bare, paper, frosted, white:



So what's it like in the real world?
 
Last edited:

Tesselator

New member
In the past 4 or 5 months with the GH1 I've been mostly only shooting with available light but here are some flower shots on the old Minolta A2. The A2 is pretty noisy with it's tiny sensor so this kind of lighting was almost a requirement in low light - never wanting to take the camera above ISO 100. The quality with you G1 would of course be superior to these if using diffused light like this. These were taken inside a fairly dark nursery.



















































 

deckitout

New member
Tesselator thanks for the in depth reply, I am still trying to get my head around some of this. I am thinking about getting the raynox 150 to start with to go on the panny 14/45. My M4/3 kit is G1 EPL1 14/45 panny, I also have a D700, 85/1.4 24/70 and 28/105 which has a close up function on it, so there are some options there which could be used with adaptors, I don't fully understand how the close up filters affect focus, DOF and focal lenght in all honesty

Any help is welcome, thank you

I am probably looking more at close up as opposed to macro, as for subject matter, leaves, flowers, textures etc
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
@ Tesselator ; Fantastic serie of insightful info on macro!
Thanks for all the work you put into that.
Think it can help a lot of people who wanna make the plunge into the macro world.

Michiel
 

Tesselator

New member
I don't fully understand how the close up filters affect focus, DOF and focal lenght in all honesty

Any help is welcome, thank you

I am probably looking more at close up as opposed to macro, as for subject matter, leaves, flowers, textures etc
Well, it's not too difficult to understand - you may be over complicating. For example if you had a 300mm f/4 Takumar which has a minimum focus distance of 18 feet and you added a #4 close-up filter (AKA +4 diopter) to the end of it then when you focused the lens to infinity it would actually be focused at 250mm (about 9.8 inches) from the end of the lens - see the table in post #10 above. There would be almost no light loss so F/4 would still meter like f/4. Focused all the way in to 18 feet it would probably be focused at just 10mm or something from the end of the lens. If the filter you used was an AC type as described above, the properties of the original lens (sharpness, CA, Color, Contrast, etc.) would be identical with the filter on as it is off. At f/32 that particular lens would probably have a max DOF of about 2 inches. If it was a #2 filter tho then the max DOF (at f/32) would probably be more like 5 or 6 inches.

It's just a cheap way to use the lenses you already have as macro lenses instead of forking out $1k for the same quality in a dedicated macro. I dunno anything about Raynox in terms of the close-up filters you guys are talking about. I know their teleconverters and their wide angle converters tho and they're some of the worst you could hope for. Really bad! Very soft around the edges, strange distortions, and CA fringing all over the place. But that may or may not reflect on their close-up filters being mentioned above. <shrug>
 
Last edited:

deckitout

New member
Tesselator
Huge thanks for all the help, I am going to study in more detail later and will more than likely have more questions

Is there a make of lens you could recommend, prefereably available from UK

Thanks
 

Tesselator

New member
Umm, I dunno. So far the only ones I've used and didn't immediately throw into the trash-bin were Kenko. Kenko is the Japanese name and I think Hoya is the western name but Hoya and Kenko are not exclusive partners and Hoya may also have different stuff available. Kenko is also the lowest priced ones too - which is nice... perfect optics at the lowest price is just how I like it. :D I guess you can find actual "Kenko" brand close-up filters on E-Bay. Just be sure to get the "AC" achromatic types or you'll be hating life. Their "MC" ones suck.

The guys here can maybe clue us in about the Raynox ones. A "good" close up filter should add zero CA and shouldn't distort until at up over +5. At +10 I haven't encountered anything that doesn't distort the edges - but +10 is extreme and a half! I have a +17 Kenko AC that I got just for fun. :D I think I paid $25 for it used.

Hey this is a good excuse for me to whip it out and take a few pics with it. :D
 
S

sagarmatha

Guest
Some fine shots there, may I ask what camera/lens setup was used
Well all photos taken from 2009 are with my Panasonic FZ50 and various closeup lenses.
My aim for 2011 is to buy the GH2 and use the 100-300 mm and the closeup lenses. Maybe I will even buy the 45 mm macro.
 
Top